[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: Buffered warnings.
From: |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: Buffered warnings. |
Date: |
24 Aug 2002 11:43:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
Tom> Do we currently always issue errors in increasing order of line
Tom> number?
No. Besides we don't issue line numbers for all diagnostics
(there is at least three FIXME: for this).
Tom> If not, would it be desirable?
I think it might be cleaner, though there are a few issues.
The diagnostics we output while processing Makefile.am are not
always related to Makefile.am. E.g., we can complain about
something in configure.ac that conflicts with the current
Makefile.am (e.g. a variable definition).
Also we should have a way to print diagnostic such as
configure.ac:12: `FOO' defined in condition `TRUE' here ...
Makefile.am:8: ... cannot be redefined in condition `COND' (implied
Makefile.am:8: by condition `TRUE').
or more to the point of sorting lines:
Makefile.am:12: `FOO' defined in condition `TRUE' here ...
Makefile.am:8: ... cannot be redefined in condition `COND' (implied
Makefile.am:8: by condition `TRUE').
(We don't display this kind of message, but this would be nice
for http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-automake/2002-August/000779.html)
Presently it is easy to print such a message by calling `msg'
twice consecutively. If diagnostics were to be sorted we'd have
to devise a way to print something like this (maybe linking related
diagnostics together?).
Tom> Reading the above reminded me of this... it seems like
Tom> buffering would help there.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz